What is supernature? Can theists give a clear description or demonstrate it without refering to the unknown? God is said to be supernatural, so did supernature precede God? Then what created supernature? If God preceded supernature and is Itself composed of supernature, then did God create Itself?

Athen Mccombs said, "What is supernature?"

supernature is the third studio album by the English electronic duo Goldfrapp. And I didn't even use unknown.

Why don't you try supernatural?

Athen did not use "supernatural" because it is an adjective while supernature is a noun..

Linda, are you an idiot?

Ned Flanders, I don't need to ask whether or not you are an idiot, because I know. Let me spell it out for you since you don't seem to be able to work it out for yourself. Supernature is the third studio album by the English electronic duo Goldfrapp. This is a correct definition for something that actually exists and is a noun. However, if you insist on a definition for Supernature; it's nonexistent irrationality.

If someone wants to discuss a recognized and proven scientific theory they first need to do some research. I don't have to do the homework for every clod, with no social skills, who is giving other people cartoon etiquette and presenting beliefs as science. If they are too lazy to do research I'm not going to do their homework for them, because no matter how much information about nonsense anyone provides it's still just nonsense.

If you don't like this comment you should look at this page to see who started the insults, for no reason, except I didn't give the kind of information that you wanted. Why the hell should I? What do you think this is - the pseudo-science Help Website? Science is not magic even if some people can only understand magic. People that have no education in geology, paleontology, or biology can not understand, let alone discuss, a scientific theory as complex as evolution.

Linda, instead of trying to be sarcastic with your Wikipedia educated pseudo-intellect, try doing some research. Supernature is a term use by academics as well as lay people, for example "Beyond Supernature: a New Natural History of the Supernatural" by Lyall Watson. You should read more or at least do a quick search on Amazon.com. Secondly, if you do not have any intelligent to say or anything of value use the Thumperian principle and stay quiet.

Christian Wells commented, "Linda, instead of trying to be sarcastic with your Wikipedia educated pseudo-intellect, try doing some research."

Maybe if you insult someone's intelligence they will accept superstitious garbage. Lyall Watson tries to explain the supernatural with biology. I read that Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates love his work. Maybe Linda is not a home schooled Christian, or she just doesn't have a Ph.D. in pseudo-science.

Christian Wells claimed, "Supernature is a term use by academics as well as lay people, for example "Beyond Supernature: a New Natural History of the Supernatural" by Lyall Watson. You should read more or at least do a quick search on Amazon.com. Secondly, if you do not have any intelligent to say or anything of value use the Thumperian principle and stay quiet."

Thumper is a fictional rabbit character from Disney's animated movie Bambi. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." In case someone wonders why they can't find it in a philosophy texts books. Repulsive! A quick search on Amazon, you're kidding. Thumperian Principle! We are not concerned about what's nice; it's about what's real.

Maybe she should try CreationWiki too! Just stay quiet while someone pawns off nauseating crap as something intelligent? No, the real problem is people buying into moronic crap. Supernature does not exist any more than Bambi exists. Her "it's an album" was a better answer.

According to Lyall Watson's widely-quoted book "Lifetide", young monkeys on the Japanese island of Koshima figured out how to make sweet potatoes, that they had provided for them, more edible by washing them. Then monkeys taught other monkeys to wash sweet potatoes, until 1958 they found that this behavior had spread widely among members of the troop. Then in that year, a sort of group consciousness developed among the monkeys, when, say, the "hundredth" monkey began washing potatoes. Suddenly, almost all of the monkeys were washing sweet potatoes, and this washing sweet potatoes seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously in colonies on other islands.

Debunking Unit (excerpt) "The first debunking of the "hundredth monkey" story came in 1985, when Ron Amundson, a professor of philosophy at the University of Hawaii, published "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" (Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985). Amundson documented that there had been a colony of monkeys -- on an island called Koshima. And many of those monkeys did learn how to wash sweet potatoes. But the number of monkeys never exceeded 59. And there was no evidence of a leap of consciousness from monkey to monkey. Confronted with this information, myth creator Watson responded with a monkey mea culpa (Whole Earth Review, Fall 1986): "It is a metaphor of my own making, based . . . on very slim evidence and a great deal of hearsay." But even Watson's admission failed to put the monkey matter to rest -- and now the monkeys are making a return engagement. So we contacted Frans de Waal, director of the Living Links Center at Emory University's Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta. De Waal, who has been studying primates for 28 years, recently returned from Koshima with an update on the potato-washing monkeys. There are now about 100 monkeys in the colony, de Waal says, but there is still no mind-meld miracle. And the percentage of monkeys that wash their potatoes has declined to about 25%: The monkeys may see, but the monkeys no do. "It's clearly a made-up story," de Waal says."

Lyall Watson's writings are all about the supernatural, psychokinesis, ghosts and similar crap. He gives the details of experiments that appear to prove the existence of a supernatural phenomenon. Then he says the experiment is not conclusive, but if the conclusions were true, the implications would be staggering. Then he talks about the implications as if they were real, although, he never really proved anything.

This would appeal to people who look for answers in the metaphysical, because they find it more interesting than real science, but it would not interest educated people. It's just encouraging people to believe in the paranormal or supernatural. However, I did read some rave reviews by biblical creationists about how much they loved "The Water People" by Lyall Watson.

Pseudo-science is all over the Internet put out by people not qualified to comment on Evolution because they are not Evolutionary Biologists, and they are simply not skilled in genetics enough to discuss Evolution.

All that you have done is prove that you have no knowledge of scientific facts or even an ability to check facts. Don't try to pawn off pseudo-science on intelligent people and then tell them to keep quiet, because they have more right to be talking than you do. Maybe you should try this on an apologist message board instead of telling atheists to keep their mouths shout. Even if you were trained to do that like the potato washing monkeys?

"Lyall Watson, and his Lifetide: The Biology of the Unconscious would require several years of work by a whole team of authors to deal with it as it deserves: as the adage goes, "20 wise men are needed to correct the ramblings of a fool." This is from a book review on November 1980 by Sanislaw Lem - On Science, Pseudo-Science, and Some Science Fiction - Translated by Franz Rottensteiner

Do I need to tell someone what they can do with this pure rubbish, and potato-washing monkeys?

Bravo, John you can type. I do not think you get the point. Before going off on a tangent consider what is being said. Philosophical theism is completely rational and legitimate to believe in as its alternative. If you claim otherwise then atheism as a position is on equal footing. To claim supernature does not exist does not bold well for you in a philosophical debate. To assert supernature does not exist means you now have a burden of proof. But let me guess, you are going to appeal to ignorance right?

Ted Nash, "Bravo, John you can type. I do not think you get the point. Before going off on a tangent consider what is being said. Philosophical theism is completely rational and legitimate to believe in as its alternative."

Yeah, demons and evil spirits are completely rational. Your inability to grasp what is being said is probably why you feel the need to try and insult others. Nonetheless, that's not what was being discussed. No, it was supernature that was being discussed. That is something over and above the natural. The claim was being made that it was something recognized by academics. I was informing the cartoon philosopher about Lyall Watson's work, and what some real scientists thought of his work.

There is scientific data and knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles but none exists for supernature. We have no trouble in trusting the veracity of the theories about subatomic particles from physicists and scientists involved because they have to present a logical theory with evidence to the scientific community for peer review before anyone believes their theory.

Ted Nash, "If you claim otherwise then atheism as a position is on equal footing. To claim supernature does not exist does not bold well for you in a philosophical debate. To assert supernature does not exist means you now have a burden of proof. But let me guess, you are going to appeal to ignorance right?"

Your otherworldly view relies on ignorance. Therefore, ignorance is all that you have to appeal to. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. How many imaginary things without proof do you think are on equal footing with things requiring evidence? What burden of proof does one have when they dismiss an irrational claim? "What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Ptolemy's astronomy, with the Earth at the center assured ancient people that they were the focus of God's attention. It was not based on observations or evidence. It was just based on belief. Copernicus, and centuries of empirical science, has proven Ptolemy was wrong, Earth is not the center of the universe. We don't believe it we know it.

Genesis had man the center of God's glorious creation week. This was not based on any observation or evidence; it was just what they believed. Darwin's evolution theory made no distinction, or any separate, divine creation of man. We know that man evolved from mammals. The fact that we evolved with a language and the ability to learn is all that has elevated us above the animal world. Well, some of us. If you have no facts or evidence you are the one that has a belief. An idea without facts or evidence requires belief, faith or both. Skeptics, atheists and agnostics cannot evaluate an imaginary (supernatural) thing or being without facts and evidence. It is simply a matter of education. Atheists are not soliciting people to 'believe' anything. Instead, We are asking them to get informed and become educated to the facts. It takes absolutely no leap of faith, or imagination or freaky notions for a rational mind to realize what is a proven reality.

There is an untold number of absurdities that I don't think people are obligated to prove don't exist? I don't have to prove imaginary things do not exist, because it's not possible. The person who does believe in imaginary things has to prove they exist with facts and evidence. If you have to 'believe' in something for it to be real what happens to it when you stop believing?

If you had facts or evidence that is what you would be presenting. Write back when you get some.

Christian Wells, Obviously ignorance is rampant, so I thought I would touch on an important issue, which is 'Bambi, A Life in the Woods' written by Felix Salten. He didn't write a silly storybook for children about a cartoon caricature of a deer. He was a Jew born in Budapest, Hungary. His family moved to Vienna after Jews were granted full citizenship rights there in 1867. He and his wife fled to Zurich after the Nazis rescinded civil liberties for Jews, shut down Jewish institutions, and started putting Jews into concentration camps.

The original book 'Bambi, A Life in the Woods' that Felix Salten wrote under the pseudonym Siegmund Salzmann in 1923 was not a children's book; it was almost 300 pages long, and you could probably only get the original from bookstores that sell original copies of vintage books. There has to have been an alteration of the "original" book, because today the books they are selling are half the size. The Bambi cartoons and storybooks have completely distorted the meaning of the original work.

The story is told from the viewpoint of the animals, and I think it is a story that makes you realize that all life on earth is important, and animal's lives should not be considered insignificant. We evolved from mammals and we are all part of nature. That's not fundamentalist Christian ideology, but the story illustrates the dangers for all life when one believes that it has the right to kill and destroy other forms of life because of the egotistical notion that it is special and more important. I don't doubt that Adolf Hitler got the message because he had the book banned in 1936 because he claimed that it was communist propaganda.

I got a kick out of reading this exchange. I am curious about Linda claiming ignorance is rampant. I have a question for Linda, if she is still wasting her time on "ignorant" people like myself, does she know everything or is she just unaware of how stupid it is to criticize ignorance and not include oneself.